Conservative Activists

BY DANA BEACH

Apr 21 2015 6:55 pm

The drumbeat for a state gas tax hike is deafening. The S.C. Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturers’ Alliance support it. So does the state trucking association. Editorials appear almost daily across the state in endorsement.

This level of consensus should send chills down the spines of concerned citizens and taxpayers, especially when the rationale for the tax hike is both specious and deceptive.

No one can dispute the poor condition of our road system. But the proposition that things will improve by imposing one of the largest tax increases in state history is demonstrably wrong. Let’s count the reasons.

To begin with, the S.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) has wildly inflated its financial needs. When asked to calculate the funding “backlog” necessary to bring the system up to standard, the department delivered the figure of $1.5 billion a year over 30 years, for a total of $42 billion. Road advocates have adopted this staggering amount — almost $10,000 for every man, woman and child in South Carolina — as the battle cry for their campaign. Virtually no one has bothered to question publicly what, actually, is included in this number.

The number includes, as it turns out, just about everything. To reach $42 billion, the DOT threw in every boondoggle project conceived in every county in the state, including, but not limited to, the $2.4 billion Interstate 73 project from Rockingham to Conway, the $600 million extension of I-526 to rural Johns Island, and the four-laning of S.C. 51 from Florence to Pamplico (more about this shortly).

The DOT project list is, simply, the mother of all slush funds. Besides padding the books on the amount of money they need, for the past quarter century the DOT and its covert and unruly twin, the S.C. State Transportation Infrastructure Bank (STIB), have failed to spend the considerable resources they already receive on projects that address true state needs. (The DOT budget is now about $1.3 billion annually and the STIB has directed more than $4 billion to projects over its 20-year life). Instead, we’ve gotten bridges to nowhere and miles of massacred trees in interstate medians.

There is a reason for this. It is called politics.

Last week, the House debated a series of amendments that would curb these abuses. It overwhelmingly rejected every single one. Notably, the biggest loser — by a margin of more than 2-1 — was an amendment by Rep. Ralph Norman, R-York, requiring the STIB to prioritize its projects, using the same standards the DOT uses, in contrast to none, which is currently the case. The only amendment that passed was one to add $25 million to a pot of money available for rural areas, from which funding would be exempt from any ranking standards.

To put this is simple terms, the House voted to raise taxes by more than half a billion dollars, but refused to provide even the most modest assurance that the funds would be used effectively.

It’s worth looking under the hood to see how the funding system really works. Consider the proposed four laning of S.C. 51 from Florence to Pamplico. The DOT estimates the project will cost $150 million. In 2007, the STIB committed $250 million to Florence for a package of roads that includes S.C. 51. Then in the summer of 2013, they promised another $90 million, (in spite of the fact that they had no additional bonding capacity until 2036, which is another, related story).

Most of S.C. 51 is now operating at what transportation engineers call “Level of Service A.” By 2030, even with no widening, the DOT predicts it will still operate at Level of Service A. In lay terms, Level of Service A means that a dog can take a 15-minute nap on the center line in complete safety. Nothing in Charleston operates at a Level of Service A (with the possible exception of Longitude Lane).

Yet the STIB squandered more than $100 million dollars to turn a lightly travelled rural byway into a virtual interstate. The reason, again, is simple. The STIB funds what its members choose to fund. The president of the Senate, Hugh Leatherman, from Florence, appoints two members, one of whom is himself.

The story of S.C. 51 is the story of the South Carolina transportation spending — politics has diverted scarce funds from true needs to political boondoggles. The House votes last week demonstrate that the Legislature will fight to keep things that way, as they have for decades.

Anyone who believes that injecting another half a billion tax dollars into the current system will produce a different outcome has simply not been paying attention.

Dana Beach is the executive director of the Coastal Conservation League.

WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING YOUR MONEY, STATE SENATORS WON’T LET A LITTLE OL’ CONSTITUTION GET IN THE WAY

When a special Senate subcommittee met on Tuesday, the purpose was clear: raising revenue by increasing the gas tax and other fees. There’s just one problem – the constitution says they can’t.

In fact, Article 3 Section 15 of the constitution plainly states that “bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but may be altered, amended or rejected by the Senate.” Senators are either unaware of, or consciously violating, this constitutional provision.

It’s clear that at least some senators are aware of the prohibition, and they’re (apparently) attempting an end-run based on semantics. This point was highlighted when Sen. Ray Cleary (R-Georgetown) introduced his transportation funding plan earlier this month. Among other highly questionable provisions, the bill eliminates several tax exemptions. The purpose of the bill, clearly, is to generate revenue, and so Cleary noted in his remarks that he thought the Senate had the power to eliminate exemptions: “Whether it raises revenue or not,” he remarked, “is secondary.”

The point was raised again in Tuesday’s subcommittee meeting. Cleary dismissed the problem by saying the Senate should draft and pass the bill, then allow the House to create its own bill, based on the Senate template. Whether senators believe House members are insufficiently competent to pass their own fee and tax hikes, we leave to others to decide.

In addition to Cleary’s proposal, a number of other Senate bills would raise “user fees” or eliminate exemptions in order to raise revenue. Here, for example, are three bills designed either to increase existing taxes and fees, or to create new taxes and fees:

S.23 would impose a new 16-cent per gallon user fee on liquefied natural gas .

S.27 raises revenue by increasing the user fee on gasoline by 2 cents a year until 2025 when it would reach 36 cents a gallon and remain for every subsequent year.

S.406, in addition to raising revenue, clearly violates the separation of powers. This bill allows the State Fiscal Affairs Authority (SFAA) to annually impose a new “motor fuel user fee surcharge” on motor fuels in addition to the existing gas tax. The bill allows a new tax to be imposed by an entity other than the legislature – the only constitutionally empowered branch with this authority.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this is Sen. Cleary’s bill (S.523), which raises and/or creates a plethora of taxes and fees. These include:

An increase in the gas tax by at least 10 cents initially, and by up to 2 cents every year thereafter.

A new $120 biennial fee on motor vehicles powered by any fuel other than motor fuel (electricity, hydrogen, and a new $60 biennial fee on hybrid vehicles.

The replacement of the property tax on motor carriers with a road user fee.

A new “road impact registration fee” on any person registering a motor vehicle, motorcycle, or RV.

Each of these bills violates the constitution, particularly S.523, which is simply a massive tax increase.

It’s important to note that there actually is a definition of a user fee in the code. It reads: “‘Service or user fee’ means a charge required to be paid in return for a particular government service or program made available to the payer that benefits the payer in some manner different from the members of the general public not paying the fee. ‘Service or user fee’ also includes ‘uniform service charges.’”

Gasoline is clearly not a government service or program. Citizens therefore shouldn’t have to pay the government for the privilege of their gasoline. Gasoline is a private good and is subject to taxation by the federal government and the state. These are not interchangeable terms. User fees and taxes both raise revenue, but they are different.

In short: some senators are attempting to arbitrarily swap the terms in order to circumvent the state constitution. Both the federal and state constitutions place hindrances on the government’s ability to tax citizens. Article 3, Section 15 is one of those hindrances. Senators should abide by it.

It’s only mid-February and already the Senate’s omnibus ethics bill is dead. In an extended and at times heated session Wednesday, the Senate failed to pass S.1 in a vote of 24 to 19. By that point, the bill had gone from bad to worse with just a single amendment.

That amendment, proposed by Sen. Luke Rankin (R-Horry) – the current chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee – would have created a joint legislative ethics commission to investigate ethics complaints against lawmakers and their staff. Rankin referred to his amendment as “his best effort to compromise” to the body. The joint commission would have been comprised of two senators, two House members, and five non-legislative members (three appointed by the governor with advice and consent of the General Assembly, and two appointed by the attorney general). This amendment was adopted after a fiery debate between several prominent leaders in the Senate. It changed the bill dramatically, and for that reason many senators voted against the measure, effectively killing the bill.

Let’s take a step back and ask if the amended bill would have been an improvement on current law. The senate bill started from a point of compromise. The bill, as it came out of committee, would:

Instead of improving the bill on the floor, the amendment by Rankin dramatically worsened an already weak attempt at reform. That’s the tough part about ethics reform, though – the public has to depend on the very lawmakers who benefit from the current system to suddenly reform it – give up their power – and create a more accountable system where public corruption isn’t legal. And so a bill rarely ever starts from a sincere whole-hearted attempt at addressing a problem; instead it starts from a point of what can be politically achieved – what will be least objectionable to those who like things the way they are.

How can this problem be counteracted?

Here’s how: Lawmakers should debate ethics reform in public. Sounds obvious, right? And yet for the last two years we’ve seen committees and entire caucuses move the debate into executive session or to the Palmetto Club, where the public isn’t invited. The result? Bills that decriminalized the ethics code, failed to alter legislative self-policing in any significant way, allowed PACs to go dark, retaliated against lawmakers’ critics, etc., etc.

We started to have some open debate on S.1, but the Senate’s President Pro Tempore – Sen. Hugh Leatherman (R-Florence) – cut it off and instead appointed a five-member group to hash out difference behind closed doors. It was determined this group could reach some sort of compromise and, as Sen. Leatherman put it, give the Senate a bill they “could all live with.” Apparently no such compromise was reached: Sen Rankin and Sen. Larry Martin thrashed each other on the floor (in the metaphorical sense, of course), and they were part of the group Leatherman appointed.

When debate resumed on the bill Wednesday, it was clear that many senators had taken a side, and it wasn’t difficult to see that a large group of senators intended to gut reform or kill it.

Contrary to many senators’ claims in the past couple of weeks, we have a problem with corruption in South Carolina – and that includes the Senate. This bill never would have addressed widespread public corruption, and the Rankin amendment took the bill even further away from anything resembling reform.

Media reports say “ethics reform” died in the Senate on Wednesday. I’m not sure that’s right. Something died, for sure, but it wasn’t ethics reform.

Jamie Murguia is Director of Research at the S.C. Policy Council, The Nerve’s parent organization

Roads are in a terrible mess.Politicians claim there is no money to fix them.And they want to raise taxes.

But the problem isn’t a lack of money. The real problem is how the existing money is managed.

Here are the facts that lead us to the solution:

Exaggerated need

The DOT’s often cited “maintenance backlog” of $40 billion is really not a MAINTENANCE backlog.

It includes every single boondoggle project that has been advanced in the state over the past decade, with I-73 ($2.4 billion), and the I-526 extension to Johns Island (roughly three quarters of a billion dollars) as poster children.

It does, in fact, also include repair and maintenance projects that are truly needed.

The problem is that there is no ranking of priorities. That is left to, literally, two people in the Legislature who pull the funding strings.

Virtually no accountability

The current system allows a small handful of state legislators, not state priorities, to determine where transportation dollars are spent.

More tax dollars for this system will mean more boondoggles.

Priority controlled by two legislators

Don’t let your eyes glaze over here. This part is very important!

In 2007, the Legislature passed Act 114, requiring an objective ranking of highway spending, based on factors like congestion and safety.

This law applies to the S.C. DOT transportation budget, but . . .

. . . the largest source of road funding flows not through the DOT, but through the S.C. State Transportation Infrastructure Bank (STIB), a separate agency.

In 2007, former Speaker of the House, Bobby Harrell, with the help of other legislators, blocked the effort to apply these standards to the STIB, thus allowing that agency to continue spending billions of borrowed dollars without actually addressing the state’s most pressing problems.

The Speaker and the President of the Senate appoint four of seven STIB board members, (a majority).

Thus, two politicians, elected by fewer than 3% of the state’s voters, control the state’s largest source of transportation dollars, through an agency that has carte blanche to spend those funds however they choose, therefore . . .

. . . it is not logical to assume that higher taxes will be better spent now than they have in the past — UNLESS the system is changed.

Under the current regime, higher gas taxes will simply mean higher gas taxes, and more boondoggles.

As Albert Einstein was reported to have said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing the same way and expecting different results.

Now is the time to let Governor Haley and our state legislators know that structural changes affecting how transportation money is spent must be addressed first, before new taxes.

For that matter, these structural changes are necessary regardless of whether we raise taxes.

Here is the real answer to our crumbling roads:

The DOT must be restructured so that it is accountable to the Governor, someone we all elect to have statewide accountability!

The STIB must be eliminated and its functions turned over to the DOT.

The good news is that transportation spending practices, after decades of lurking in the shadows and the back rooms of the Legislature, are now under the spotlight.

It’s an opportunity for reform we can’t ignore.

So please contact your state Senator and Representative and tell them “no tax hike” until the STIB is eliminated and DOT is fully accountable to the Governor (someone who we all elect – more about that in a future e-mail)

P.S. Throwing more money at a broken, unaccountable transportation funding system won’t fix our roads. The system must be fixed first.

So please contact your state Representative and state Senator and tell them, “A higher gas tax won’t fix our roads. First, eliminate the STIB and make the DOT fully accountable to the Governor. Pouring more money into a broken system just won’t work!”

COME JOIN US AT THE STATE HOUSE ON FEB. 10 IF YOU OPPOSE OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED TAX INCREASE. AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY WILL PROVIDE THE BUSES, LUNCH AND A T-SHIRT. YOU MUST REGISTER BELOW TO SECURE A SEAT. THE COST IS $10. HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT JANET SPENCER AT janetspencer69@gmail.com.

Patriots,

The liberal special interest groups and taxaholic legislators are at it again…this time they want a massive new gas tax hike.

Some politicians in Columbia have even proposed a 20-cent per gallon gas tax hike – a 120% increase!

High-paid lobbyists and special interest groups are in Columbia every day begging for a gas tax hike that will cost us billions. They want to get their hands on more of your hard-earned paycheck to waste it away on things like mass transit, light rail and bus lines.

WASHINGTON, DC— Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement today regarding his decision to buck the status quo and challenge John Boehner in the race for House Speaker:

“After the November elections gave Republicans control of the Senate, voters made clear they wanted change. There have been numerous examples of problematic Republican leadership, but we were hopeful our leaders got the voters’ message. However, after our Speaker forced through the CRomnibus by passing it with Democratic votes and without time to read it, it seemed clear that we needed new leadership. There had been much discussion. But, until yesterday, no one had stepped up.

I applaud my friend Rep. Ted Yoho for putting his name forward as an alternative to the status quo. Ted is a good man for whom I could vote, but I have heard from many supporters and also friends in Congress who have urged me to put forward my name for Speaker as well to increase our chances of change. That is why I am also offering my name as a candidate for Speaker.

There is false information being floated that any Republican candidates in addition to the current Speaker will split the vote and give the Speaker’s gavel to Congresswoman Pelosi. This is nothing but a scare tactic to keep the current regime in power.

As long as Republicans vote for an adult American citizen for Speaker, no Democrat can win. Only if 59 Republicans voted “Present” would there be a chance for a Democrat to win.

To win the Speaker’s race, an adult American citizen has to get a clear majority of all Members of Congress on the House floor voting for an eligible person. Voting “Present” simply reduces the number of votes required to win a majority. If no one wins a majority on the first ballot, then we go to a second vote, then a third, until someone gets a majority.

At this point, the Speaker’s election is not about a particular candidate. It is about whether we keep the status quo or make the change the country demands. I am putting forward my name for consideration as Speaker and hope that with a new Speaker, be that me or someone else, we can fight for the ideals and principles that the voters wanted when they elected us in November.”

Congressman Gohmert is the Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Prior to being elected to serve in Congress, Louie was elected to three terms as District Judge in Smith County, Texas. He was appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry to complete a term as Chief Justice of the 12th Court of Appeals.

They have a point. It’s just usually one that they aren’t willing to admit in public. The Jihad comes from the Koran. Every act of Muslim violence that is religiously sanctioned, from terrorism to rape, is derived from the Koran. If you ban incitement to violence against non-Muslims, you criminalize the Koran.

A Muslim cleric who preaches from certain passages of the Koran could be caught in the “broad” net of the government’s new anti-terror law, Islamic leaders have warned.

Grand Mufti of Australia Ibrahim Abu Mohammad and the Australian National Imams Council have called for the offence of “advocating terrorism” to be removed from the so-called Foreign Fighters Bill, currently before Parliament.

Islam and terrorism. The two are intertwined.

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing.”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.”

You can’t ban terrorism without banning Islam.

In its submission, the Islamic Council of Victoria said the new law would incriminate Muslims who support “legitimate forms of armed struggle”, including resistance to the Assad regime in Syria and the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

So the argument is that they want to promote “good terrorism” against Jews and they don’t want to be sanctioned for it. Muslim settlers. Australia clearly needs more of them to create a tolerant society. A tolerant society which promotes the “legitimate” murder of Jews.

“Criminalising the act of ‘advocating terrorism’ adds another layer of complexity to this issue. The scope of what constitutes ‘advocating terrorism’ is unclear.”

It’s not that unclear, except to Muslims, who insist that killing terrorists is terrorism… but terrorism is legitimate.

The council identified what it says is a double standard in Muslims wanting to go to Syria and Iraq to provide aid having their passports cancelled “while ignoring the travel of Zionist Jews wishing to travel to Israel – a state which illegally occupies Palestinian territory with intention of fighting in a war against Gazans and has been accused of war crimes”.

#IllridewithyouallthewaytoISIS

But setting aside whatever views anyone may have on Israel, Aussies traveling to Israel to fight with the IDF are not going to go back to Sydney and kill people. The same can’t be said for Muslim settlers in Australia traveling to join terrorist groups.

It’s not a double standard. Australia is trying to prevent terror attacks on its own soil. Muslim leaders insist that banning terrorism will outlaw their legitimate right to kill Jews and promote the murder of non-Muslims for “legitimate” reasons.

S.C. Rep. Crawford Suddenly Resigns House Seat

In a surprise announcement today, S.C. Rep. Kris Crawford, R-Florence, said he is resigning from the House, telling The Nerve this afternoon, “Everybody who knows me, for good or bad, knows I do things full speed.”

Asked why he resigned just after being re-elected to the seat he had held since his first election in 2006, Crawford, an emergency room physician, initially replied: “Health care has become a lot more complicated. There’s a lot more administrative work.”

“My heart just really wasn’t in it,” he said, adding later in the interview, “The time has come to focus on my work and family.”

Crawford’s resignation letter, which was addressed to new House Speaker Jay Lucas, R-Darlington, and received at the House Clerk’s Office at 12:10 p.m. today, reads only, “Please accept this as notice of my resignation from the South Carolina House of Representatives Seat 63.”

Crawford told The Nerve that he began the resignation process last night, resigning from the House Legislative Oversight Committee and the S.C. Child Fatality Advisory Committee. He said after thinking about it more overnight, he decided to resign his House seat today.

“It was disruptive just going in there for two days,” Crawford said, referring to the House’s two-day organizational session last week.

The Nerve reported last week that a special House panel that in late October had recommended a controversial “oath” rule, which was co-sponsored by Crawford, dropped the proposal last week as the House was adopting its rules – a day after a Nerve story questioned the legality of the rule. The proposal would have required anyone testifying before a House committee to be sworn in first – and face a possible felony charge if the testimony was willfully “false, materially misleading, or materially incomplete.”

Contacted this afternoon, Laura Hudson, executive director of the S.C. Crime Victims’ Council and a member the state Child Fatality Advisory Committee, told The Nerve that former House Speaker Bobby Harrell, a Charleston Republican who resigned his long-held seat in October after pleading guilty to misusing campaign funds, recently had appointed Crawford to the committee, but that he had missed three meetings without explanation.

Citing the election of Lucas as the new House speaker and new House rules, Crawford told The Nerve, “It looks very different in the House,” adding, “This is a good time for my constituents to get a new representative.”

Crawford was convicted in 2012 on four misdemeanor counts of willfully failing to file state income-tax returns and was ordered to pay $21,380 in fines and costs. He received no jail time and kept his House seat.

AND HE’S WILLING TO BULLY YOU TO STOP IT …

A post earlier this week in The Nerve told of newly elected Rep. Greg Duckworth (SC House District 104) pursuing libel lawsuits against two supporters of outgoing Rep. Tracy Edge.

Duckworth’s libel claims concern letters to the editor by Charles Collins and Bren Gibson during the 2012 election season. Edge defeated Duckworth in the 2012 Republican primary but lost to him in 2014.

The first thing that comes to mind – “Is this guy serious?”

The U.S. Supreme Court has set the standard for defamation and libel lawsuits in the public arena to what is commonly referred to as “malice aforethought.” This means that a plaintiff must not only prove the statements made against him or her were false, but also that the defendant made those statements knowing they were false or in acting with reckless disregard of the truth.

In South Carolina, political speech is totally uncontrolled. There is no requirement for a candidate to speak the truth and, of course, most don’t.

This looks like nothing more than a politician attempting to silence criticism by filing nuisance lawsuits.

Historically, the American political arena has been a wild, raucous venue when it has operated at its best. There should be no place for thin-skinned politicians who can’t take criticism.

Filing lawsuits against political critics appears to be an attempt to take away 1st Amendment rights.

Over the years, I have watched politicians develop huge egos after being elected to office, but this is ridiculous.

Have we really come to the point where politicians now think saying something critical of them gives them the right to sue?

Link to The Nerve article: http://thenerve.org/news/2014/11/24/Lawsuits-activities/

Your Help Is Needed

Bren and Chuck are in the midst of a lawsuit with former North Myrtle Beach City Councilman Greg Duckworth who is suing us for Libel/Slander in Horry County, South Carolina for speaking out. If you believe in grass roots activists and their right of free speech, please help us in defending our First Amendment rights of community activistism. Funds raised in excess of our needs will be pledged to other citizens who are being sued by politicians for defamation for speaking out on the issues and holding them accountable.